b_lumenkraft I understand your concern, believe me I do. Geoengineering could make matters worse. However, I don't see a theoretical difference between planting forest using trucks to transport people and supplies or "planting" plankton with ships or even "planting" clouds with airplanes. They are all geoengineering.

They are all human attempts to control the climate using information and lots of accumulated energy. The fear is not that we fail, the fear is the unintended consequences.

That said, we are heading to terrible times. There is nothing worse than doing nothing about it. And if doing something carries risks, the risk of doing something must be weighted against doing nothing. It shouldn't be dismissed simple because it sounds risky.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

b_lumenkraft

Archimid, let me remind you that Brazil had an election recently. They elected the guy who promised to cut down the rainforest.

You don't need trucks to plant trees. They just grow on their own. Not cutting them down in the first place would also help.

If you do the things you said, you produce more CO2. More is worse, i know you know that!

Imagine how much fertilizer you would need to have a global impact. And then think how much wind turbines you could make for the same amount of resources. The math can't possibly work out! Wasting our limited resources on BS is indeed worse than doing nothing in this case.

"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning S. PoelsmaPrisons in your head!

I don't agree that as the 3rd top polluter I agree to ruin my economy while the top 2, steal my jobs and continue polluting is somehow a good thing for the planet.Sorry, I and millions like me can't buy into that concept.Come up with one where everyone suffers equally (to save the planet and millions of lives) and maybe I can buy in, this way I can't trust the motives.

At the scale that trees must be planted to make up of years of deforestation, it is simply not true that trucks aren't needed and is just a matter of planting them.

You need to collect and plant seed, nurse them into saplings, then go to correct spots, clean the area, dig, plant them and every so often, specially in the early life of the trees they must be tended. If drought or flood happen they will need help.

This is something that must be done, we must get planting trees at a scale that puts nature to shame. But don't kid yourself. It will be a huge effort and it will require modern technology to make it feasible. Also many species will go extinct as we change habitats to whatever they are now to forests.

It doesn't matter. It needs to be done. Together with zero emissions and CO2 extractions by other methods. More direct forms of geoengineering will be needed too. Fossil fuel interests won. There is no longer time to do this the easy way.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

At the scale that trees must be planted to make up of years of deforestation, it is simply not true that trucks aren't needed and is just a matter of planting them.

You need to collect and plant seed, nurse them into saplings, then go to correct spots, clean the area, dig, plant them and every so often, specially in the early life of the trees they must be tended. If drought or flood happen they will need help.

This is something that must be done, we must get planting trees at a scale that puts nature to shame. But don't kid yourself. It will be a huge effort and it will require modern technology to make it feasible. Also many species will go extinct as we change habitats to whatever they are now to forests.

It doesn't matter. It needs to be done. Together with zero emissions and CO2 extractions by other methods. More direct forms of geoengineering will be needed too. Fossil fuel interests won. There is no longer time to do this the easy way.

This sounds like monoculture to me, and I'm sure the Irish can explain about monoculture.

Monoculture tree planing, especially in grasslands, has been shown to be carbon negative.

We also have to be careful, as the rise in methane recently has been attributed (partially) to increased rot that increase non-linearly with temperature and linearly with precipitation. Any solutions that involve land use change have to be verified to ensure carbon reduction.

Perhaps the best solution is to harvest dead trees, thereby reducing fire risk, burn them for power, and inject the CO2 produced into old petroleum formations.

Monoculture tree planing, especially in grasslands, has been shown to be carbon negative.

A natural forest maximises the use of sunlight.Plantations do not.

A natural forest can be started by planting a mixture of trees known to be happy in that particular habitat. And that needs a study before rushing into planting. It probably takes a century or more afterwards to for it to reach its maximum fecundity and biodiversity. 1st image

In many places, e.g those with thin laterite soils, it is almost impossible to resurrect the forest. I flew over New Caledonia more than 25 years ago. The hills had lost their trees - deforestation by the colonial government. It is highly unlikely things have changed that much.Much more recent image attached.

"We will just plant a load of trees". Nature just does not work like that.

I don't agree that as the 3rd top polluter I agree to ruin my economy while the top 2, steal my jobs and continue polluting is somehow a good thing for the planet.

Don't worry, you are the no. 1 polluter per capita, by far, and for the sake of convenience, we will just ignore history. And we will also ignore that the top 2 produce a lot of your shit, because your leaders decided to screw you over and outsource your jobs, and your current leader is lying when he says he wants to do something about that.

FYI, I'm not letting your other two comments through. This thread is for "stupid" questions, not for stupid questions.

Logged

Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

b_lumenkraft

Sorry, I and millions like me can't buy into that concept.Come up with one where everyone suffers equally (to save the planet and millions of lives) and maybe I can buy in, this way I can't trust the motives.

They brainwashed you hard, Larry.

The truth is in the distance of a Wikipedia click. Still, you eat up the FoxNews and Breitbart lies.

If you really want to learn about all this, turn off the TV and use websites that don't manipulate you. I really hope you can do that.

I don't agree that as the 3rd top polluter I agree to ruin my economy while the top 2, steal my jobs and continue polluting is somehow a good thing for the planet.Sorry, I and millions like me can't buy into that concept.Come up with one where everyone suffers equally (to save the planet and millions of lives) and maybe I can buy in, this way I can't trust the motives.

/sarcasm on/ spoken like the true moral and intellectual giant you are./sarcasm off/

If we take your road, we all die, through (take your pick) environmental disaster, famine, disease or war.

Our nation can't control others, but it can act, set the example, and break ground with tech that can push fossil fuel use into the dumpster it should be in, all the while stoking our economy and improving our health.

In short, we make our own survival more probable.

You are malignant, Larry, and appear to have a death wish for all of us; or perhaps rather are so myopic you can't see past what affects you personally to where you see the things that need to happen to insure your long term welfare. Your option is unacceptable.

I may not be very intellectual but I was smart enough to build a multimillion dollar business and send two children to Ivy League Schools.

There are many different ways to skin the cat, lots of different and interesting programs to combat the rise of CO2 that don’t involve destroying economies and leaving millions without jobs.

Seeding oceans , building specialized forests, more wind and solar power, we don’t have go back to horses to make things work and we don’t have to get crazy, demonize people who don’t agree with us and make this a fanatical enterprise but again, I’m not convinced in either direction, yet.

There are huge economic opportunities in transition to non fossil carbon energy. Unfortunately the benefits of that transition will accrue to people and entities who are not the current oligarchs of fossil fuel.

Trillions are at stake. Trillions pay for a lot of lies.

In reality the transition will benefit everybody other than those currently benefitting from fossil fuel use. That of course, is not to be tolerated, or so sayeth the barons of fossil.

I think Lefty is on to a valid point: Tackling global warming is definitely going to push USA out of 1st place. But that is happening anyway, and the AGW denialism so rampant in the USA is actually making it easier for China to regain it's historically guaranteed 1st place globally.

The more the USA fights AGW reality, the quicker the Chinese will overtake them. Is that good or bad? Honestly I don't know, I've been to China, but not the US, and the Chinese struck me mostly with their absolute conviction that they are the best, and will eventually be the biggest and strongest as well.

When it comes to arrogance, there is not much to chose between the two, but when it comes to the qualities that ensure success, the Chinese seem to have the better share.

Logged

because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily trueSt. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

b_lumenkraft

However you look at the data, there is no way China could possibly catch up with American per capita emissions. Even if China would reach an American level of lifestyle, they would emit way less CO2 per capita still. China has already ~40% renewables on the grid.

Heard it recently (forget where) that for 5000 years the 'Chinese' have been the most dominant civilisation, except for the anomalous last 200.

It's definitely what the Chinese themselves consider the truth.

Looking historically, Europe was a backwater when it came to the global economy or military might well into the 19th century. Technological advances did however begin to pull Europe up as early as the late middle ages.

If anybody is interested in these things, the starting point would be the classic "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond (on why Europeans ended up ruling the world, and not i.e. the Papua New Guineans)

Another great read is "Why the West Rules for Now" by Ian Morris, where he looks at the numbers behind various civilizations and judges their comparative strengths through history. An interesting fact from this book: In the 13th century, central China was on the verge of the industrial revolution, 400 years before England. But then the Mongols came ..

For a short, topical and informative read, "The Revenge of Geography" by Robert B. Kaplan is a good choice, about how the US is totally losing the plot and the Chinese stepping in with their long view of history and realpolitikal take on geograpy. A topical book and worth a read if one wants to understand how the modern world is shaping up - and having been several times to East-Africa recently, I can definitely say that Robert seems to have been very prescient.

Logged

because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily trueSt. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

b_lumenkraft

Ancient China is a fascinating story. If you are interested in it, learn about the Silk Road also. It's about thousands of years of peace achieved by trading and globalism. When there was no trucks and aeroplanes, people traveled the whole (known) world and mixed and flourished.

Quote

The Silk Road trade played a significant role in the development of the civilizations of China, Korea, Japan, the Indian subcontinent, Iran, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-distance political and economic relations between the civilizations. Though silk was the major trade item exported from China, many other goods and ideas were exchanged, including religions (especially Buddhism), syncretic philosophies, sciences, and technologies like paper and gunpowder. So in addition to economic trade, the Silk Road was a route for cultural trade among the civilizations along its network

There are many different ways to skin the cat, lots of different and interesting programs to combat the rise of CO2 that don’t involve destroying economies and leaving millions without jobs.

There's a lot variety of opinions on this forum, so please, don't imply that the community here is a homogenous monolith of librul alarmism.

Quote

Seeding oceans , building specialized forests, more wind and solar power, we don’t have go back to horses to make things work and we don’t have to get crazy, demonize people who don’t agree with us and make this a fanatical enterprise but again, I’m not convinced in either direction, yet.

Climate risk denial demonizes itself. If you want to discuss solutions, fine, but the era of hard climate risk denial is over.

But you should be pleased, as you managed to derail this thread quite a bit (with my help, of course). Shall we get back to 'stupid' questions, or just shut up if there are none?

Logged

Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

b_lumenkraft

So, if you are the businessman you claim to be, it is even more jaw-dropping to me that you are so economically illiterate. If you transform the energy sector to renewables, you create a lot of jobs. Way more jobs than you kill by killing the fossil fuel sector. Also, how can you not see the business opportunity?? Millions of roofs need to be updated, thousands of wind turbines need to be built.

Since we need resources to build this machines that extract CO2 from the air while polluting the air with CO2, wouldn't it be more reasonable to first put this resources into machines that prevent emitting CO2 in the first place? Like windmills and solar panels? This would prevent the need for even more machinery to extract even more CO2.

So you see, no need to learn about this for the next 10-30 years. Because this is the time to prevent more CO2 pollution. Not the time for CO2 emitting geoengineering.

It's my understanding that we'll need to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere that's there. While planting trees is a very good idea, there are a lot of humans who need food; so planting trees where we need to grow food isn't really an option. (the other factor, population growth, also needs to be dealt with. It's too bad that homosexuality isn't a choice, that would limit growth wonderfully, I'm gay and have no kids... Realistically, birth control needs to become much more popular. Higher taxes should be imposed on people who have more than two kids.)

I'm not really thinking about the traditional factories, or machines either. I'm wondering if there's more to optics than we're yet aware of. The light from the sun can cause colours to fade, it has an influence in producing Carbon 14, it provides the veggie matter with the ability to turn water, air and nutrients into wood. There's got to be a 'cheat' there that's exploitable for the collective 'us'. (Yes, I'm aware that my last sentence is totally wishful thinking, and not at all scientific)

I'm also thinking that putting all of our 'resources' into one basket isn't a good idea either. Except, of course, that one basket of not using fossil fuel anymore.

b_lumenkraft

It's my understanding that we'll need to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere that's there.

Well, sorry to say, your understanding is flawed in this regard.

Quote

I'm also thinking that putting all of our 'resources' into one basket isn't a good idea either.

Other than having more trees, there is no way to pull out CO2 out of the air other than produce machinery which adds to emissions. Period. You really need to understand that basic fact.

This is really basic math here. We need zero emissions. Geoengineering adds emissions. Adding emissions makes it harder to get to zero.

Quote

wishful thinking

You are right with the point that fewer humans would be helpful. And yes, it's utopic. But it is way less utopic to think birth control would become a thing than thinking geoengineering would be beneficial.

b_lumenkraft geoengineering is fantasy but we are going down that road at full speed. CO2 is not just rising but rising faster than ever. And it's even worse when taking into account total CO2e forcing.

But yes, it makes no sense to try clean up the mess while making more of it at the same time.

I've got an actual Stupid Question. Friv (or someone else) would you be able to post a 500 hPa Geopotential forecast image and walk through what it is showing?

(and the whole "we can have great jobs and a great economy by transitioning to renewables" is a mirage. We need to consume much, much less. We don't need great high paying jobs; we need a new, relocalized, low impact, non-capitalist economic model with completely different values. But that's a topic for a different thread!).

I agree that one does at times think, "but what is happening at ground level?" ...

As for humanity being able to do anything to curb AGW, to these aged eyes the answer seems an obvious no - we are simply not clever enough as a species.

But will it lead to catastrophe, the fall of civilization and the end of times? No ... I hope not ... we are incredibly resilient as a species, also when it comes to dumbly continuing to carry on as if nothing has happened.

Logged

because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily trueSt. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

So, if you are the businessman you claim to be, it is even more jaw-dropping to me that you are so economically illiterate. If you transform the energy sector to renewables, you create a lot of jobs. Way more jobs than you kill by killing the fossil fuel sector. Also, how can you not see the business opportunity?? Millions of roofs need to be updated, thousands of wind turbines need to be built.

(Sorry Neven... ^^)

Yes, the renewable industry is expected to create more jobs than are killed by dismantling the fossil fuel sector. As any economics professor can tell you, unless those are very low paying jobs, the economic costs of those jobs will lead to increased end costs to the user. It is a give and take. It cannot lower costs and create more jobs, any more than it will raise costs and kill jobs.

So, if you are the businessman you claim to be, it is even more jaw-dropping to me that you are so economically illiterate. If you transform the energy sector to renewables, you create a lot of jobs. Way more jobs than you kill by killing the fossil fuel sector. Also, how can you not see the business opportunity?? Millions of roofs need to be updated, thousands of wind turbines need to be built.

(Sorry Neven... ^^)

Yes, the renewable industry is expected to create more jobs than are killed by dismantling the fossil fuel sector. As any economics professor can tell you, unless those are very low paying jobs, the economic costs of those jobs will lead to increased end costs to the user. It is a give and take. It cannot lower costs and create more jobs, any more than it will raise costs and kill jobs.

Cannot seems a bit strong if not just wrong. Remember the oil jobs are ongoing annual expenses of ff electricity generation whereas the renewables jobs are capital investments. You can spend more on capital investment but the investor is willing to pay for a large part of these cost in order to own the investment so it doesn't all fall on electricity customers.

So in this case, yes you can get more jobs and not have it cost through electricity price.

The only 'but' really is that once the investment has been put in to get to 100% renewable electricity then the renewables installation jobs disappear. You can see this as good as the workforce can do other useful things for the economy or bad as in people losing their jobs but whatever your view it is some decades off yet.

Yes, the renewable industry is expected to create more jobs than are killed by dismantling the fossil fuel sector. As any economics professor can tell you, unless those are very low paying jobs, the economic costs of those jobs will lead to increased end costs to the user. It is a give and take. It cannot lower costs and create more jobs, any more than it will raise costs and kill jobs.

No, this is too simplistic. Look at this from the perspective of a power generation utility. With fossil fuel use, that source energy has to be purchased from suppliers, with transportation costs.

With renewables, the source energy (sunshine, wind) is delivered free, directly to the generation infrastructure. They will cause more employment in building and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels--without increased total cost. Free source energy delivered free to generation infrastructure permits this.

The cost of extraction and combustion of fossil fuels isn't composed entirely of labor costs. There are embedded costs of various kinds of "rent," and energy costs, business costs of giving dividends to shareholders, and widely-ignored societal costs of providing subsidies.

Overall, it's quite possible to have more jobs, and better jobs, without the cost of energy going up.

There are huge economic opportunities in transition to non fossil carbon energy. Unfortunately the benefits of that transition will accrue to people and entities who are not the current oligarchs of fossil fuel.

Trillions are at stake. Trillions pay for a lot of lies.

In reality the transition will benefit everybody other than those currently benefitting from fossil fuel use. That of course, is not to be tolerated, or so sayeth the barons of fossil.

sidd

This isn't necessarily true. Oil companies in California added sequestration into the LCFS. They can offset their required carbon credits by sequestering carbon. That's good news for both the economy and for the environment. It's better than most policies, like a carbon tax, that don't actually tie the carbon produced to the carbon put back in the ground using life cycle analysis.

It allows much broader use of petroleum, so fuels like Jet, that are extraordinarily hard to replace, can still be in use. it also allows the LCFS to set lower and lower bench marks for the carbon index of fuels that I can now see getting to close to 0 rather than the current 92. Without sequestration, getting below 80 is an absolute bitch.

It WILL benefit the oil companies. They will get a premium for both taking the carbon out and putting the carbon back into the ground. Who will pay? Consumers, of course, we have to pay for the environmental cost of using petroleum, it will be more expensive, and it's uses will be more specialized, as it should be.

It's my understanding that we'll need to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere that's there.

Quote

wishful thinking

You are right with the point that fewer humans would be helpful. And yes, it's utopic. But it is way less utopic to think birth control would become a thing than thinking geoengineering would be beneficial.

My understanding of the need to remove CO2 comes from reading about the Paris Climate thing, back in 2012. Getting to an absolute zero emission scenario isn't likely to happen; for one, the steel industry needs to use carbon to turn iron into steel. And there's not a government on Earth that would allow that industry to be shut down. Ever. Unless, of course, a better material is found for them to build weapons.

Thank you for helping me refine my question,

Is there any research going on that is looking at reducing CO2 without adding more CO2?

To think that 'we' know everything there is to know about physics and biology is not a valid thought. To be clear, I'm not suggesting any sort of 'traditional' geoengineering. And yes, I'm also aware that I'm emulating the Easter Islanders, circa just after they cut all of their trees down.

Still wondering what an oceanographer would look for when quickly eyeballing those temp/salinity profiles.

If we look at the one in uniquorns example temp to 700m is where the warm water below is so as long as the green stays where it is it is fine. The top temperature graph has some green stripes so what does this say? It is obviously the more interesting one but what sort of features would you look for?

Salinity to 700m has these blue stripes, do they have a meaning?

And as a bonus...there is probably a good excuse for those scales with slightly differing values?

As they say you can't catch fish if you don't fish.

Also reposting dnem's question:I've got an actual Stupid Question. Friv (or someone else) would you be able to post a 500 hPa Geopotential forecast image and walk through what it is showing?

Bear in mind that the AMSR2 regional charts published by Wipneus follow a different demarcation of the various regions (mainly the CAB and its surrounding inner seas). This map should be somewhere on the forum as well.

If we look at the one in uniquorns example temp to 700m is where the warm water below is so as long as the green stays where it is it is fine. The top temperature graph has some green stripes so what does this say? It is obviously the more interesting one but what sort of features would you look for?Salinity to 700m has these blue stripes, do they have a meaning?

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2417.msg206566.html#msg206566The stripes. They appear to occur on the days when the profiler doesn't complete the up or down profile from 0-800m. It seems that the algorithm that draws the chart just fills in with solid colour above and/or below where the profiler stops. Compare the profile chart and the animation. More interesting is why the profiler is unable to move. Possibly due to high drift speed, strong current, turbulence etc but also fouling, motor fault....

Has anyone come up with a numerical relationship between Arctic sea ice compactness and average pack rotation speed, or amount of export out the Fram Strait?

I'm spooked by the idea that decades of cumulative thinning and removal of old ice as anchors has led to a functionally new state in the CAB ice pack making it more vulnerable to wind or current driven transport.

During the GAC in 2012 there were comments that if the ice had been thicker the cyclone damage to the ice would have been much less, but the average thickness by then had been reduced enough to allow much more wave damage. Since 2012 the trend towards thinner and more rotten ice has had another 7 years to make the remaining ice even more vulnerable today. Any observations about average pack rotation 2019 vs. earlier years much appreciated.

Wipneus's Farm Strait export chart doesn't show increasing export trend, so my logic may be missing key factor. And I don't know of any other measure of export loss or pack mobility. It just seems to be rotating more this year. If there was a correlation of mobility or transport with compactness that would at least provide a measure to track this issue and indicate I'm not making all this up in my head.

Wipneus's Farm Strait export chart doesn't show increasing export trend, so my logic may be missing key factor. And I don't know of any other measure of export loss or pack mobility. It just seems to be rotating more this year. If there was a correlation of mobility or transport with compactness that would at least provide a measure to track this issue and indicate I'm not making all this up in my head.

The increased mobility of the ice seems to me a feature of this year. Too many posts mentioning it about areas all over the Arctic not to be significant, and MYI down again.

Wipneus shows, I think, export volume. As the years go by the ice has thinned. All things being equal then export volume would reduce. If export volume is not going down, then larger areas are being cleared out of the Arctic.

Spooky, I should say so. All the arguments are about when, not if, summer sea ice tends to zero(ish).

Logged

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!""And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)